Voodoo Doll | Voodoo Doll

[volkers]

Actually, this fits perfectly with elements. You have to know your cards. If you have a better knowledge of the cards than another person, you will have a better chance of winning a battle.

No it doesn't. A card game where the cards don't actually tell you what they do is poor design. The only way it'd fit with Elements is if Elements is a poorly designed game.

I'll make the assumption you've at least heard of Magic: the Gathering. I'm a, let's say, fledgling player of Magic. I've got a few months under my belt, I know the basics by now, and every other time I play there's something I or someone else is not quite sure about. The local forum's topic "how does this card work under these and these circumstances" is 70+ pages big after just a few months. Hence that's a flawed way of thinking, just like the topic. In fact, I don't even get why people are so bothered by this, do you even meet those decks in PvP?

[QuantumT]

I'll make the assumption you've at least heard of Magic: the Gathering. I'm a, let's say, fledgling player of Magic. I've got a few months under my belt, I know the basics by now, and every other time I play there's something I or someone else is not quite sure about. The local forum's topic "how does this card work under these and these circumstances" is 70+ pages big after just a few months. Hence that's a flawed way of thinking, just like the topic.

That's not the same. The VAST majority of those posts are made by people who don't have a good grasp of how the game works yet and are asking for clarification. Most of the rest are covered by people asking for specific interactions that aren't spelled out on the card (kind of like adrenaline).

Here we have a card that says it will function one way, but instead functions in a way that is distinctly different.

In fact, I don't even get why people are so bothered by this, do you even meet those decks in PvP?

That's not the point. There's no reason for the card to be misleading since it's text can be changed relatively easily.

[Krahhl]

Here we have a card that says it will function one way, but instead functions in a way that is distinctly different.

How is that? I agree that the text doesn't clarify what happens when you TU a voodoo, but it doesn't say anything that would make you think otherwise, other than if you just went by blind assumption?

That's not the point. There's no reason for the card to be misleading since it's text can be changed relatively easily.

Suggest some text that it could be changed to, instead of just saying that it would be easy to change?

[Werdbooty]

Suggest some text that it could be changed to, instead of just saying that it would be easy to change?

Here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,19120.0.html)

[Krahhl]

Well yeah; I was just pointing something along the lines of "actions speak louder than words", though in this case the action is done through wording ._.

[QuantumT]

How is that? I agree that the text doesn't clarify what happens when you TU a voodoo, but it doesn't say anything that would make you think otherwise, other than if you just went by blind assumption?

The card specifically says that it's only if 'this' doll is damaged that damage dealt. The new TUed doll hasn't had any damage dealt to it, so why should it deal any?

This discussion should probably be moved to the change the wording thread, as basically no one is arguing that the interaction is OP.

[BluePriest]

Because the doll still IS damaged. Thats why the damage is dealt

[QuantumT]

Because the doll still IS damaged. Thats why the damage is dealt

The new doll was never dealt that damage except by some extremely contrived use of the word dealt. The original doll is what had damage dealt to it. The new doll just spawned having that damage already dealt to it.

Again, why are you so against clearer wording?

[Krahhl]

It says "If this creature survives an attack, damage and status are inflicted to your opponent as well."

It can be assumed that TU counts as an attack. It's not clear, but it doesn't say "If this creature is TU'ed, damage is not redone to your opponent."

[QuantumT]

TU counting as an attack isn't even remotely intuitive. There is absolutely nothing in the wording that would indicate it's an attack, and even if it were, there still isn't necessarily a good reason for it to deal damage.

Basically the way I view damage is this:

Doll has X hp.
Doll takes D damage.
Doll now had X - D damage.

When you TU it, there isn't ever a point where it's at a higher HP, so it's never dealt damage.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it dealing damage isn't consistent with the functioning of the rest of the effects either . If damage is going to be dealt than I should also redeal any poison counters, refreeze weapons, etc.

We could argue about it more but basically the problem is that the wording isn't clear. This is shown by the number of people who have to have it explained to them what happened when they took damage. Why not change the wording a bit to make it more clear?

[Krahhl]

If damage is going to be dealt than I should also redeal any poison counters, refreeze weapons, etc.

I actually do think this should be the case. The wording says "damage and status", so it should inflict both.

We could argue about it more but basically the problem is that the wording isn't clear. This is shown by the number of people who have to have it explained to them what happened when they took damage. Why not change the wording a bit to make it more clear?

I agree that the wording should be changed. I just didn't agree that it specifically misled people into believing that TU'ing would not redo the damage; those assumptions were made only because there was nothing that said it would. But that's not really important anymore, since the focus has shifted to how we should clarify the wording, not why.

[Flash fire]

I dont care about the combo, it was just the example of the exploit. The card functions in a way that i feel just doesnt make sense... alot of people seem to agree that they dont understand how it works either.

If it does not go 2 + 2 = 4 then maybe it should not.

I want to meet who sat down without playing and went hmmm if I TU a doll then instant damage should be dealt all over again... like double jepardy...


In fact I am pretty sure that it was discovered by accident because the deck had an intended function to TU and throw gravity force on it with 180 hp sponge. Not to TU and hit instant 78s and stuff.